To not enter my ds for the 11+

[Minifingers]

DS is bright, top of the top set for maths at school and good at music, but his literacy is weak - dreadful handwriting and syntax.

DH wants to enter him for the 11+ for a super selective. His mum has given us the money to pay for an intensive 15 hour 11+ preparation course next week, but I think it's not a good idea.

The grammar school in question selects on the basis of a maths and English test. The test covers level 6 maths and the English test involves writing an essay. DS hasn't had any tutoring up to this point and has not done any level six maths. He's never, in his whole life written more than a page and a half of anything, and his writing is slow and very messy.

DH is pissed off and I know he feels that I'm turning DS into a wuss by trying to protect him from failure. He's also angry with both of us for not having dealt with it earlier. Neither of us has ever done more with ds than support his music and do the things which all parents do - read to him every day, take him to museums, talk to him etc. We don't do regular maths or writing practice with him. Actually I've never sat down and supervised or looked at any maths with him, and precious little literacy.

DH thinks we should just 'let him have a go' at the test. I think it's unkind to enter a child for a test you believe they can't pass when it's for something as important as secondary school choice. Particularly when they'll be sitting alongside children who've had YEARS of tutoring.

AIBU?

True.

It can't have come as a shock to OP or her DH that the local schools are either over subscribed or hoodie-infested shit holes (OP says there are older DC).

It can't have come as a shock that there is a super selective near by which might suit their DS.

It can't have come as a shock that the kids who apply to the SS are doing some prep.

Unless the family have been in a coma...

I'm not sure what the OP wants. She has changed the story several times- and appears also to be misrepresenting her local schools. I find it hard to believe thqt an articulate intelligent person could possibly not have considered the issue of secondary education before her child hits yeqr 6.

All very odd.

I think the OP is fairly typical of many people who are anti private education, selective schools etc. Few people stand by their so called principles where their own child's education is involved. People should think twice before they preach to others.

I still maintain - I don't know exactly where the OP lives but I think it's roughly in my neck of the woods (maybe the torso) - that this bit of London is not packed with shit-hole schools...

Interested in what you said about your son being v. good at maths, but poor at literacy with shocking handwriting etc. We had something v. similar and the school suggested we get an educational psychologist report done. They aren't cheap, but it showed some really interesting stuff up. In our case - DS has a really high IQ, but has low auditory and visual processing which affects the literacy stuff. Bottom line, he has been diagnosed as being slightly dyspraxic. Gets more time in exams, now uses a laptop rather than struggling with the handwriting (which I now understand he will NEVER find easy like most children). Sorry - not answering your Q about whether to put him in for 11+ (bl**dy tough one), but just a thought. So it may be that your DS is actually plenty bright enough to pass exams to get into a selective school - if that's what you want - and the literacy thing might not be a reason to assume he isn't bright enough. Not sure if that made sense, but slightly leapt out at me when I read the OP.

She has already said that the "shit hole school" (god, I hate it when people use words like without irony) has 26% high attainers. Which gives her ds a perfectly acceptable academic peer group.

Literacy is not the same as handwriting. You can have terrible handwriting, but write fabulous stuff and be extremely good at reading. And vice versa. Bad handwriting may disguise a high level of literacy, as someone suggested upthread, but it is not the same.

(But what do I know, my highly literate kids go to the comp and I'm v happy with it, so am clearly Uncaring Indiscriminate Parent.)

motherinferior, good point about literacy and handwriting.

my oldest is about to start the local comp, we opted out of the selective rat-race for a variety of reasons, one being that I (arrogantly) think (hope) that he will do well there, and he can do without all the hothousing and pressure.

FWIW - with dyspraxia it's handwriting AND spelling/sentence construction. So it can appear that literacy overall is a problem (and that ability isn't that hot) when in fact that might not be a good reading of the situation and a child's abilities.

Yes, but my point remains that handwriting and literacy are different things. Lots of people on MN get them mixed up. Dyspraxia may affect both, but they are still quite different. My partner has dreadful, horrible handwriting but is perfectly literate. My lovely italic script is conversely not the reason why I have a couple of English degrees.

Whilst I agree that handwriting and literacy are most definitely not the same thing, I do think that being able to write clearly can help improve literacy.

I have 'Doctor's handwriting'. Looks like a pissed-up spider walked in ink across the page. Has never improved despite my parents 'encouragement' as a child. I am very literate however. As is my teenager, who has just written a book without handwriting a word.

Being able to write beautifully (in appearance) does not improve literacy. It might get you better marks in both subjects, because a shoddily presented piece of work will create a (possibly false) bad first impression and some markers may not be diligent enough to out the effort in to actually read the damn thing, but looking shoddy and being shoddy are in fact two different things.

Being able to write legibly allows DC to see if a word 'looks' right thus encouraging them to spell correctly.

Being able to write speedily and neatly allows DC to get their fabulous ideas down quickly and then read them out loud, thereby impressing their parents :)

DS1's spelling improved as his handwriting improved; he could no longer hide the misspelt words behind the scrawl and had to face up to the fact that he was making some quite basic errors in spelling.

Many of the professional writers I know have atrocious handwriting. Doesn't stop them being literate. Many of the people I know with beautiful penmanship are also the dullest most un imaginative and turgid people you cold dread meeting.

Decent handwriting is a sign of decent handwriting. Nothing more.

Being able to read your own writing does have some advantages though. My ds is dyslexic, has overcome his reading issues but has terrible handwriting. He now does all of his school work on a laptop.

We are also lucky enough to live in an area with true comprehensive schools. Having our children at primary school in South East London we weren't at all happy with our local choices. We took the option of moving (wouldn't pray, superselectives a long long way away and I think single sex, probably would have payed).

Having now experienced schools which really do take everyone (my children share their classrooms with some very wealthy and some very disadvantaged children) I am very happy with our choice. One particular plus has been the total lack of angst.

Let him try. Life is full of disappointments and rejection, if he doesn't make it, it's your job as parents to help him deal with his feelings. But I don't understand what the problem is with at least trying?